Re: [tcpm] Proceeding CUBIC draft - thoughts and late follow-up

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

sorry for misunderstanding/misrepresenting  your issues.

> On Jun 6, 2022, at 13:29, Markku Kojo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> These issues are significant and some number of people have also said they should not be left unaddressed. Almost all of them are related to the behaviour of CUBIC in the TCP-friendly region where it is intended and required to fairly compete with the current stds track congestion control mechanisms. The evaluation whether CUBIC competes fairly *cannot* be achieved without measuring the impact of CUBIC to the other traffic competing with it over a shared bottleneck link. This does not happen by deploying but requires specifically planned measurements.

So whether CUBIC competes fairly with Reno in certain regions is a completely academic question in 2022. There is almost no Reno traffic anymore on the Internet or in data centers. 

I agree that it in an ideal world, the ubiquitous deployment of CUBIC should have been accompanied by A/B testing, including an investigation into impact on competing non-CUBIC traffic.

But that didn’t happen, and we find ourselves in the situation we’re in. What is gained by not recognizing CUBIC as a standard?

Thanks,
Lars

-- 
Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.